Arkansas

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.2590th
  Defense+0.253rd
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense48.7%92nd
  Defense47.3%7th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3485th
  Defense+1.2739th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2696th
  Defense+0.204th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3075th
  Defense+0.411st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.8%90th
  Defense52.2%8th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.5%98th
  Defense36.1%3rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4396th
  Defense3.0527th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.1%32nd
  Defense19.3%54th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.9%25th
  Defense15.4%46th

Percentiles among the 136 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2025

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Arkansas allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   AAMU
2. W
   ARST
3. L
   MISS
4. L
   MEM
5. L
   ND
6. L
   TENN
7. L
   TA&M
8. L
   AUB
9. L
   MSST
10. L
    LSU
11. L
    TEX
12. L
    MIZ

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arkansas.

Players, 2025

1. Taylen GreenQB373 plays · +0.226 pts/play · 32nd of 231 QBs
   1.58WAR0.88 to 2.24
2. Mike Washington Jr.RB182 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 31st of 365 RBs
   0.33WAR0.22 to 0.44
3. O'Mega BlakeWR61 plays · +0.252 pts/play · 26th of 451 WRs
   0.29WAR0.14 to 0.43
4. Raylen SharpeWR54 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 123rd of 451 WRs
   0.15WAR0.05 to 0.26
5. Rohan JonesTE19 plays · +0.244 pts/play · 40th of 213 TEs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
6. Scott StarzykPK17 plays · +0.244 pts/play · 66th of 112 kickers
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
7. Braylen RussellRB39 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 257th of 365 RBs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10
8. Jaden PlattTE24 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 103rd of 213 TEs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.08

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Arkansas's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  77377323rd of 134Roster talent: 773, 23rd of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22122126th of 134Recruiting: 221, 26th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  36%36%66th of 132Returning production: 36%, 66th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.1+5.152nd of 134SP+ rating: +5.1, 52nd of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2025

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Arkansas's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.03 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. vs MIZQ3 7:04 4th & 2 at MIZ 24, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
2. vs TA&MQ4 2:27 4th & 5 at ARK 12, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
3. vs TA&MQ2 11:17 4th & 4 at TA&M 4, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
4. vs AUBQ1 4:51 4th & 14 at AUB 35, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
5. at TEXQ1 7:34 4th & 2 at TEX 15, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. at TENNQ1 0:20 4th & 4 at TENN 10, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. at MISSQ1 12:51 4th & 2 at MISS 33, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs AAMUQ4 9:53 4th & 2 at ARK 40, up 45Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

136th of 136 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Arkansas's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   AAMU
2. W

   ARST
3. L

   MISS
4. L

   MEM
5. L

   ND
6. L

   TENN
7. L

   TA&M
8. L

   AUB
9. L

   MSST
10. L

    LSU
11. L

    TEX
12. L

    MIZ

What moved it, 2025

Every game starts at Arkansas's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard−3.57
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.14
• Timeouts−0.03
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.13

Game by game

• AAMUW 52-7 vs AAMU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• ARSTW 56-14 vs ARST93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +9
• MISSL 35-41 at MISS41% → 4%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −3
• MEML 31-32 at MEM73% → 8%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −38, Possession & field position +2
• NDL 13-56 vs ND35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −40, Clock −1
• TENNL 31-34 at TENN24% → 4%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• TA&ML 42-45 vs TA&M26% → 4%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• AUBL 24-33 vs AUB57% → 4%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• MSSTL 35-38 vs MSST63% → 13%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −43, Clock −4
• LSUL 22-23 at LSU33% → 5%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1
• TEXL 37-52 at TEX24% → 1%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• MIZL 17-31 vs MIZ40% → 1%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −45, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from Arkansas's side.

Closest call

ARK 41-38 TCU (2016) - Arkansas dropped to a 2.1% win probability before pulling it out.